Back
SANJAY DHAR
Mohammad Jameel Kasana – Appellant
Versus
Zaffar Ahmad Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against him alleging commission of offence under Section 379 RPC, which is pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby process has been issued against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid complaint. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 26.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag, whereby revision petition filed against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Magistrate has been dismissed.
2. It appears that respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that he is the attorney holder of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JK01Q-7383 and that the Power of Attorney in his favour has been executed by the petitioner/accused on 12.05.2015. It was averred in the complaint that due to turmoil in Kashmir Valley in July-August, 2016, the complainant could not deposit the loan amount with the bank and in the month of October, 2016,
Once a contract of sale is complete, the seller cannot take back the sold property without consent, as it would amount to theft under Section 378 RPC.
Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though is restrictive but can always be exercised in order to stop abuse of process of law.
Possession of the property at the relevant time is crucial for establishing theft.
The rights and obligations in a hire purchase agreement, including the lender's right to repossess the vehicle, were central to the court's decision.
Theft of vehicle – Sale in auction – Petitioner deserves to be given back his vehicle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of vicarious liability in criminal law and the legality of actions taken by a finance company in relation to loan defaults.
Possession of stolen goods shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
A cognizance order may be quashed if there is a total absence of evidence against a petitioner, particularly when no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. has been obtained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
